NOTE: This is a “sticky” top post, new posts will appear below this one.
No, I’m not asking for money, only your ability to research and encapsulate an idea.
I have another big project in the works, and I’m inviting you all to be a part of it because this is an idea that lends itself to crowd-sourcing very well. I’ll have a press release forthcoming as to what it is all about, but in the meantime I decided to give you an opportunity to pitch in and help.
The concept is simple and revolves around the question “Did you know?” and climate science.
Here’s how it works.
Every one of us has some little tidbit of information they learned about climate science that isn’t being told by the MSM and doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m looking for a series of “Did you know?” tidbits to use in an upcoming presentation. For example:
==============================================================
Did you know?
The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) as is often portrayed in science stories?
This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.
===============================================================
As shown above, the concept and supporting graphic fits on a single slide. That’s what I’m shooting for.
Using the example above, I’d be indebted to you if you could provide similar examples in comments. Please provide a URL for a supporting graphic if you have one, along with a URL that provides a source/citation for the information.
Concepts that are just words without graphics are acceptable too, provided they are short and succinct. They have to fit on a single slide.
Other readers are also welcome to fact check the submissions in comments, which will help make my job easier.
This post will remain a top post sticky for a few days. Thank you for your consideration.
Did you know that when conduction and convection are viable methods of heat transfer between the surface of an active object and an inactive object, “backradiation” and lower active object surface temperatures can exist simultaneously.
This is the principle of an air-cooled engine–i.e., fins (additional radiating surface area) are attached to the surface of an internal combustion engine to cool the engine. Radiation from the fins to the engine’s surface (i.e., backradiation) exists simultaneously with a cooler engine surface.
pat says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
>>
Did you know:
In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.
UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
DEFINITIONS*
For the purposes of this Convention:
2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
>>
WoW! That has to be today’s winner .
That is the most irrefutable proof that the UNFCCC and the IPCC which it spawned deliberately set out to create confusion in the public mind by nothing more subtle than DEFINING what climate change was to mean.
And that right from the outset and in Article number one.
So “human induced climate change” became climate change.
since no one is going refer to “Climate change which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”, this ensured that IPCC would refer to “climate change” which, in the absence of a full explanation each time the phrase is uttered will inevitably result in AGW being confounded with natural variability.
Did you know that tree ring densities (MXD) provide an excellent thermometer and that none divergence appears around 1960?
http://nsa31.casimages.com/img/2012/10/21/121021070812974934.png
Did you know that if humans burned all the currently known hydrocarbon reserves, CO2 concentrations would merely double the pre-industrial concentration of 285ppmv , no more. Doubling would cause, at most, 1 degree C of temperature change. This amount of temperature change is easy to adapt to and would not cause any of the predicted catastrophes.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page41.htm
Did you know equal amplitude electromagnetic waves that are antiphase cancel out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)
DYK…that Glin (@October 21, 2012 at 1:48 am) is Welsh (AFAIK) for ‘d*ckhead’.
In the last four thousand years each successive millenium has been cooler than the previous one. The Holocene optimum i.e. the warmest time in the past 10,000 years occurred between 6 and 8 thousand years ago.
It looks like the peak of warming has passed and cooling towards the next ice age is well underway.
The arctic circle is currently moving North at 49 feet a year.
Did you know that the oceanic cycles (amo/pdo/enso) have masked GW for 16 years?
Did you know that if oceanic cycles cool the planet, that they also warm the planet, and that the warm phase of the oceanic cycle occurred from 1980-2000?
did you know that i find this the most obscene sentence written by a so called climatologist.
from Phil jones, “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
worried about what, that you cannot continue conning the public. Now a normal person would say “the no upward trend after 15 years is a relief”
Kelvin Vaughan says:
October 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
Did you know equal amplitude electromagnetic waves that are antiphase cancel out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)
Amazing Kev. Did you know that 1-1=0 ??!
Did you know, linear reactions and long period positive feedback mechanisms are rare in nature?
Ask why is it so? says:
October 21, 2012 at 9:10 am
Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the moon is 107 degrees Celsius and has virtually no atmosphere.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
——————————————————————————————————-
If you actually read the data in provided your link you will see that 107 Deg.C is the mean DAYTIME temperature. The mean night time temperature is minus 153 deg.C. Together they give a mean temperature for the surface of the Moon of minus 23 Deg.C – very similar to what the Earth would be without greenhouse gases.
phi says:
October 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
>>
Did you know that tree ring densities (MXD) provide an excellent thermometer and that none divergence appears around 1960?
http://nsa31.casimages.com/img/2012/10/21/121021070812974934.png
>>
Once you subtract a +ve trend from meteo data and subtract a negative trend from MXD they look a bit similar. So is it the negative correlation of the trends or the vague similarity of the bit that remains that ” provide an excellent thermometer ” ?
Having subtracted the divergence they no longer diverge. Brilliant. I suggest you apply to be research assistant for Michael Mann, he seems to be a bit short of tricks these days. Maybe there’s an opening for you.
Whether or not this is what Anthony has in mind, this plethora of good points cries out for syllabi of courses for different levels of grade-school children. Think Climatology for Grade 4, Climatology for grade 5, etc.
/Mr Lynn
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/flipaxis.htm
did you know that the Earth was very large?
P Solar,
Ask yourself these questions:
– when appears the divergence?
– What diverges?
Otherwise, thank you for the suggestion but I skate without stick.
DYK that the IPCC admits that the various climate models show a broad range of sensitivity (by a factor of 2X from lowest to highest) and that they attribute the vast majority of this to differences in how feedbacks are calculated?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
paragraph 1
Note: I think this DYK ought to be positioned in the context of richardscourtney’s comments about a wide range of values for aerosol forcing. If the models all used similar values for aerosol forcing, the range would be MUCH larger, showing that the models in fact are NOT in close agreement as the IPCC claims, and that NONE of them have a good grip on feedbacks which is THE central point of the debate. If feedbacks were not significant, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR COMPUTER MODELS IN THE FIRST PLACE. We could just do the calcs on the back on an envelope and get the right answer. Attributing 75% of the divergence between models to differences in feedfback calcs while each of the models uses very different values for aerosols that causes them to converge is a tacit admission IMO that understanding of feedbacks is very weak. Read that in turn in the context of the IPCC’s admission that their understanding of radiative forcing in 10 of 15 categories is “low” or “very low” and you have all the info you need to conclude that the climate models are, at best, a stab in the dark. Add to that their complete and utter failure to predict the last 16 years of no warming, and one can conclude further that calling them a “stab in the dark” is probably being kind.
phi;
– when appears the divergence?
– What diverges?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DYK:
The tree ring proxies used by Michael Mann and Phil Jones to substantiate their hockey stick reconstructions diverged from the instrumental temperature record post 1960, and led to their “trick” to “hide the decline” by replacing this data with thermometer reading? And that despite this admission that their own tree ring data did NOT follow temps for about 1/3 of the instrumental record, they continue to maintain that the centuries prior to the instrumental record should still be accepted as accurate?
DYK that the trees most commonly used in these studies have growing seasons of just 2 to 3 months per year and so have NO response to temperature for over 75% of the year? DYK that there is NO way to remove factors such as rainfall variation, cloud cover, disease, pestilance, plant and animal decay (fertilization) and temporary competition (short lives aspen growing amongst long lived oaks for example) from the tree ring data?
DYK that there are dozens of reconstructions using other techniques that are in general agreement with each other from all over the world that dispute the tree ring data?
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
Did you know that there are naturally occuring lakes of liquid CO2 at the bottom of the deep ocean?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1599885/
Did you know…
The hydrogen used in fuel cells is extracted from methane (natural gas). One of the by-products is carbon dioxide.
In a normal car, with an internal combustion engine, you put gasoline in the tank, and burn it to produce power. Carbon dioxide is one of the tail pipe emissions.
In a fuel cell car, you fill the tank with hydrogen. But the carbon dioxide was produced before the hydrogen even arrived at the fill station.
How A Fuel Cell Works
http://www.ballard.com/about-ballard/fuel-cell-education-resources/how-a-fuel-cell-works.aspx
Did you know that the hottest planet in the solar system, Venus, has the lowest wind speeds of any planet and that the coldest planet in the solar system, Neptune, has the highest wind speeds?
So much for extreme weather events being caused by increased temperatures. Weather is of course driven not by temperature, but by temperature gradient.
Venus
Surface pressure: 92 bars
Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
Diurnal temperature range: ~0
Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
Neptune
Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars
Temperature at 1 bar: 72 K (-201 C)
Temperature at 0.1 bar: 55 K (-218 C)
Density at 1 bar: 0.45 kg/m3
Wind speeds: 0-580 m/s
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html
If the following chart is correct then we are at one of the coldest periods in Earth’s history :
http://omniclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/28392301.jpg
A great graphic to show how renewable energy works!
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/09-2/20121004_artemis.png
The main CAGW claim is that additional CO2 creates forcing through water vapour of about three times the warming of the CO2 alone. This figure was simply made up and has not been shown to be true. There is no science to back the claim.